Aw Jansen

Aw Jansen is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2014 to 2020. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in collective sales and construction law. Their track record shows a 80.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 20% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Aw Jansen has demonstrated expertise across 31 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and administrative law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Architects and Engineers Liability	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Collective Sales	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Medical Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Medical Malpractice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Real Estate	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Strata Title Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Medical Ethics	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Disciplinary Proceedings	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Complicity	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Medical profession and practice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Duty of Care	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Appeal	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Professional Ethics	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Disciplinary Proceedings (Medical)	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Common intention	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Professional Conduct Rules	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Appellate Practice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Aw Jansen has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Aw Jansen has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Rodyk & Davidson LLP	3 cases	60% of cases	Chin Ivan v H P Construction: Validity and Enforcement of Architect's Certificates in Construction Contract Dispute(Mar 2015) Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council: Disciplinary Proceedings & Costs(Mar 2015) Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council: Professional Misconduct & Standard of Care in VBAC Delivery(Nov 2014)
LVM Law Chambers LLC	1 cases	20% of cases	Arumugam Selvaraj v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence for Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt(Aug 2019)
Donaldson & Burkinshaw LLP	1 cases	20% of cases	Yeo Sok Hoon v Tan Thiam Chye: Collective Sale Dispute over Realty Centre(Oct 2020)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Aw Jansen's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.3
Complex Cases: 1 (20%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	20%
Won	43.5 parties avg	3.5	80%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2014	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2015	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2019	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2020	15.0 parties avg	5.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Aw Jansen's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Partial	1(20%)	20%
Won	4(80%)	80%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	250,000.00	62,500.004 cases	4

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2014	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2019	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Yeo Sok Hoon v Tan Thiam Chye: Collective Sale Dispute over Realty Centre 05 Oct 2020 Yeo Sok Hoon (Plaintiff)Won	05 Oct 2020	Yeo Sok Hoon (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffApplication for collective sale order allowed; costs of S$70,000 and disbursements of S$53,525.54 awarded to the plaintiffs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Arumugam Selvaraj v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence for Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt 27 Aug 2019 Arumugam Selvaraj (Appellant)Partial	27 Aug 2019	Arumugam Selvaraj (Appellant): Appeal dismissed in partAppeal against conviction dismissed, appeal against sentence allowed.
3	Chin Ivan v H P Construction: Validity and Enforcement of Architect's Certificates in Construction Contract Dispute 11 Mar 2015 IVAN CHIN (Appellant, Defendant)Won	11 Mar 2015	IVAN CHIN (Appellant, Defendant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed with costs of $40,000. The proceedings were stayed in their entirety and the respondent’s claim referred to arbitration.
4	Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council: Disciplinary Proceedings & Costs 04 Mar 2015 Ang Pek San Lawrence (Appellant)Won	04 Mar 2015	Ang Pek San Lawrence (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; conviction and all orders made by the Disciplinary Committee, including the costs order, were set aside. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council: Professional Misconduct & Standard of Care in VBAC Delivery 18 Nov 2014 Ang Pek San Lawrence (Appellant)Won	18 Nov 2014	Ang Pek San Lawrence (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal against conviction for professional misconduct allowed; orders made by the Disciplinary Committee set aside. Appellant to have costs and disbursements of the inquiry and proceedings (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).